diversity

Chapter

12

Creating Inclusive Classrooms

The Ability/Disability Continuum and the Health Dimension

Realistic Reflections

Page 381

Focus Questions

What determines which students are “exceptional”?

What is meant by the term inclusion of exceptional students?

What is the philosophical basis of inclusion? Its legal basis?

What is the educational basis of inclusion?

“I can either look at you or I can listen to what you say. I cannot do both at the same time.”

—High school student on the autism spectrum explaining eye contact to the teacher

Page 382

Case Study

Wide Reaching Benefits of Inclusionary Classrooms

Sarah Hutchins, a quiet member of the diversity class, was thrilled to begin her field experience in Southpoint School District, a district with a small but growing immigrant population. A dual major in both elementary education and special education, Sarah is expected to spend time in both the general education class and with a teacher in the multiple disability class. On her first day at her field site, she met with Ms. Farmer who has been the principal of the school for the past 25 years.

Ms. Farmer sat with Sarah, explaining, “When I started at Southpoint as a teacher 35 years ago, the school looked very different. At that time, the general education curriculum was beginning to move from a more teacher-centered approach to one that was more child-­centered. We were just in the early stages of beginning to serve children with disabilities. Since then, the school has transitioned from a secluded, separate classroom setting for children with disabilities, then on to mainstreaming, and finally to the full inclusion setting you will see today.”

Sarah asked, “How did all of that change take place?”

“Well,” Ms. Farmer went on, “Southpoint has a very active parent inspired group that’s been around for decades called the Association for Retarded Citizens or ARC. The ARC advocates for Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), something that is a mandated law in the individual education program, or IEP, for all children with disabilities. The ARC has been very proactive, and, in many ways, is responsible for moving children with special needs out of the segregated residential settings many were in during the mid-1950s, to what you will now see in schools today. I want you to have this background so you fully understand why schools look as they do today and to understand some of the roles of people you will meet during your experience in Southpoint schools.”

Ms. Farmer asked Sarah to join her as they walked through the school.

“Southpoint Elementary has two classes at every grade-level kindergarten through Grade 6. Let’s stop at the second-grade classrooms so I can introduce you to some of the team.”

They entered the classroom just as a group of teachers were settling in for a team meeting.

“I’d like you all to meet Sarah Hutchins who will be completing her field experience with us for the rest of her semester. Sarah, meet Mr. Fine and Ms. Roe, the two second-grade general education classroom teachers, Ms. Miller, the multihandicap teacher and Ms. Kane who serves as the intervention specialist and resource specialist for the kindergarten through third-grader students who have disabilities. Please take a few minutes to introduce her to all that you do.”

And with that, Ms. Farmer excused herself and left the team to explain to Sarah about Southpoint School District’s special education program.

“Well, welcome Sarah,” began Mr. Fine. “Let me tell you a bit about my classroom. There are 25 students in my second-grade classroom; seven of whom have disabilities identified as low incidence. Not all of these students are in my classroom all day, but when they are, Ms. Kane is available to support them with any of their academic or personal needs.”

Ms. Miller chimed in. “I have eight students in my MD, or multiple disability classroom. These students have a range of learning challenges with diagnoses ranging from Down syndrome to autism spectrum disorder, while some have other cognitive, physical, or health-related impairments. All of these students transition to an inclusionary setting at certain times throughout the day depending on what is identified in their IEP; some may join them in the class for music or morning meeting, for instance. Many of these students have educational assistants that accompany them when they join the inclusionary classroom.”

Ms. Kane added, “Some students that may need more academic assistance than we can provide in the general education classroom come to my resource room where I can give them more individualized instruction in a quieter setting. The amount of time they spend with me is determined by their IEP.”

Page 383

“It might be good if Sarah sees the other schools in the district so she has a better sense of how special education services are provided to children across the K-12 continuum. Why don’t you make a quick visit to the middle and high schools with Ms. Kane?” And off they went.

At the high school they ran into Ms. Deitz, the music teacher.

“Sarah here is studying special education and will be with us for a while. Do you have any students on IEPs that have an interesting story that you can share?” Ms. Kane asked.

“I do,” Ms. Deitz replied. “Gary is relatively new to the school, and this is his first time in a public school setting. His prior schooling experiences had been in smaller, more secluded settings. He is on the autism spectrum, and pretty much noncommunicative except for occasional one-word utterances. His parents insisted he be allowed to be part of the choir as he loves to listen to music and enjoys his karaoke machine. So choir was included as an inclusionary class on his IEP.”

“At first, I was at a loss as to how he could actually be part of this class. One day I asked small groups of students to choose a song and they could use karaoke as a method to perform. I was quite surprised when a group of girls graciously chose Gary to be part of their group. And what they discovered was really amazing! He has the most beautiful voice and has memorized many of the popular songs kids sing today. When they performed for the class, he was an important contributing member of the group, singing all the words and with a beautiful voice. The class gave him a standing ovation and he is now going to perform at the high school talent show.”

Ms. Deitz continued. “I videotaped his class performance. When I showed it to his family, his mother and father were overjoyed. His elder sister had tears in her eyes saying she was so happy for her brother. Apparently, he had never had a friend and to see such acceptance was overwhelming and heartwarming. This experience has really reinforced the notion that we should not judge a person by what appears on the outside, but to give all children opportunities. We might all be surprised to see what is possible.”

Sarah and Ms. Kane left the high school and walked across the campus to the middle school. When they arrived at the school, they met with Mr. Nichols, an intervention specialist. He invited them to observe a seventh-grade health class that had a guest speaker from the ARC who was talking about various disabilities. Students in the class were encouraged to try using wheelchairs, blindfolds, and sound cancelling headphones to mimic a few types of disabilities. A university student on the autism spectrum spoke about what it is like for her as a student having autism. During a discussion, some of the seventh graders talked about neighbors, friends, or family with various challenges in their lives. One talked about a grandparent who has Alzheimer’s and a cousin who had a bicycle accident and now has a traumatic brain injury. Another student commented that this has been very cool to learn about how people that might act differently really are just people and that they want friends and kindness like everyone else. She said that she wanted to start a group that includes individuals with disabilities—not something that just focuses on doing something for the person with a disability but a friend group.

Sarah and Ms. Kane returned to the elementary school just as the day was ending. One of Ms. Miller’s students had an IEP meeting and the family was just arriving. Ms. Kane asked the family’s permission to allow Sarah to join the meeting. They consented.

Ms. Miller introduced Sarah to Mr. and Mrs. Baraghani, a quiet couple from Iran. They arrived with gifts for each of the teachers, that in addition to Ms. Miller, included Mr. Fine, and two others who provide related services, a speech therapist and occupational therapists. They apologized to Sarah for not having a gift for her.

Ms. Miller began the meeting, first turning to the parents. “We’ve developed a close relationship these past months. With your permission, I’d like to share part of your story with Sarah.” The Baraghanis consented.

Page 384

Ms. Miller continued. “Sarah, you should know that the family has had a very difficult time. Mr. Baraghani is a professor of accounting at the city university and Mrs. Baraghani is a student in the nursing school. It has taken them a long time to accept the diagnosis of their two children, twins. No one in their family in Iran has children with disabilities. The conditions that their children have, at least as perceived by some people back in their home country, are viewed as punishment from God for having done something wrong. The Baraghanis said that some of their relatives said this was a punishment for coming to America. It took us some time for everyone to understand that autism does not have a known cause, that they should not blame themselves for leaving Iran, and that this was in no way the explanation for their children’s disability.”

wavebreakmedia/Shutterstock

Ms. Miller continued. “I reached out to the Imam from the local mosque to see if he might be willing to talk with all of us. He, too, has a child with special needs and understands that the etiology of disability, although not always fully understood, is not meant as a punishment. This meeting helped us all quite a lot.”

At the end of the meeting, Sarah thanked the team for the time they’d spent with her and was especially grateful to the Baraghani family for allowing her to sit in on their meeting. After the family left, she turned to the team and thanked them again.

“You know, this has been a really rewarding day on many levels, hearing about the success in the music class and, especially, seeing how all this intercultural work we’re doing in our diversity class may have application in the special education classroom. Thanks. I really look forward to spending more time in your schools.”

Rationale for Inclusive Classrooms

From its inception, a fundamental characteristic of American schooling has been its intended inclusiveness, across social boundaries of gender, class, and—belatedly—race. Today, the term inclusion refers to the practice of including another group of students in regular classrooms: students with physical, developmental, or social-emotional disabilities, and those with chronic health problems.

Page 385

Educational inclusion has both a philosophical and legal basis. Philosophically, proponents believe that groups of learners are ideally inclusive communities—cohesive groups with common goals, each of whose members is a unique individual, different from every other member, but sharing with every other member the characteristics that distinguish the age (e.g., middle school), affinity (e.g., computer club), or other basis for forming that particular community. All members have their individual contributions to make, and each derives his or her own benefits from membership. The philosophical basis of inclusive education does not rest on the manifestly wrong notion that everyone is the same or learns in the same way. It rests, instead, on the principles that heterogeneity within a group is both unavoidable and desirable and that differences in ability—to read printed material or use Braille, to speak or use signs, to walk or use a wheelchair, to acquire skills rapidly or slowly, to express thoughts with pen and paper or with a keyboard—are not marks of greater or lesser worth.

Another key philosophical basis for inclusive education is the concept of normalization, an idea that emerged in work with persons with cognitive disabilities in the Scandinavian countries in the 1960s. It was originally defined as “making available to all mentally retarded people patterns of life and conditions of everyday living which are as close as possible to the regular circumstances and way of life of society” (Nirje, 1969, p. 231; see also, Wolfensberger, 1972). Subsequently extended to all areas of disability, normalization means that the lives of exceptional individuals of any age should be characterized as much as possible by the same kinds of experiences and daily routines and rhythms as those of persons who do not have disabilities.

For a person living in an institution, rather than with a family in the community, that implied radical changes in practice—a shift from institutional care to community-based services, such as group homes and supported employment. This principle also has had important implications for exceptional children and youth in school, not in suggesting they do not need supportive services, but concerning how assistance is provided. The idea is to provide whatever adaptations are needed as unobtrusively as possible, ensuring that the student can participate in all classroom experiences and, as much as possible, in the same manner as everyone else.

While philosophical principles transcend the letter of the law, civil rights legislation represents their expression in public policy. In the legal sense, an inclusive classroom is one from which no “otherwise qualified” student, who would ordinarily be a member, has been excluded because of a disability if the student’s needs can be addressed through “reasonable accommodations.” Those key phrases—“otherwise qualified” and “reasonable accommodations”—were contained in two pieces of civil rights legislation. First, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibited discrimination based on disability on the part of agencies receiving federal funds (including public schools). This mandate was extended to the private sector by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.1 As a practical matter for schools, that means no a priori policies can be adopted consigning pupils who have, have had, or have been thought to have a certain “type” of disability to a certain “type” of program. It means pupils with impairments affecting major life functions cannot be deprived of access to learning opportunities by architectural or attitudinal barriers, and that all pedagogical decisions, including placement, must be based on individual, rather than categorical, considerations. This legal protection from discrimination also affects pupils who have disabilities but who have not been found eligible for special education (including many with special health care needs, such as asthma, sickle cell disease, and HIV/AIDS) as well as those who are eligible for special education.

Page 386

The other legal cornerstone of inclusive education is the principle of least restrictive environment (LRE), expressed in Public Law 94-142, federal legislation that was reauthorized in 1990 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and subsequently as IDEIA, with the addition to its title of the word Improvement.2 While recognizing a continuum of potential school placements, this principle states that, to the maximum extent appropriate, students with disabilities must be educated in a regular classroom, with nondisabled peers, and be removed from such settings only if the student’s needs cannot be met there, even with supportive aids and services. Moreover, each student’s individual education program (IEP) must include a statement of the minimal extent to which the student will participate in regular education and an explanation of why any needed services cannot be provided in a regular class. Although this law, like Section 504 and the ADA, was most compellingly based on the need to prohibit exclusion, in this instance of children from public schooling, its intent was also to promote inclusion of exceptional children in the learning experiences shared by other children. Congress clearly meant to ensure that each student found eligible receives specialized instruction and related services (e.g., speech, physical, or occupational therapy; adapted physical education; counseling; and adaptive equipment or technology) appropriate to his or her individual needs in the most normal setting considered feasible for that student.

Although the legal basis for inclusion—nondiscrimination and LRE—has not changed, changes in language used by educators, advocates, and exceptional individuals themselves reflect philosophical changes. Mainstreaming, a term used in the 1970s, implied movement out of a special placement, often for limited periods of time, and into regular school experiences—the “mainstream.” In the 1980s, reflecting the legacy of the civil rights movement, the word on the lips of many educators and parents was integration, sometimes merely physical, preferably social, and ideally instructional.

Like societal inclusion, inclusive education implies shared participation of diverse individuals in common experiences. As one might expect, this concept is interpreted somewhat differently by different people and, therefore, is implemented with varying degrees of inclusiveness. The most straightforward interpretation of full inclusion, which many educators and parents endorse as the standard, is that a pupil, like Gary in the Southpoint School District, should attend the school he would attend if he did not have a disability, with his neighbors and siblings, and be enrolled with whatever groups of learners he would be part of if he did not have a disability. A key proviso is that any needed supportive aids or services are provided, including those requiring the direct service or consultative expertise of specialists, so that special education is defined as a service, not a place.

Also like societal inclusion, educational inclusion has, since the 1990s, been a worldwide movement. While inclusion may be implemented differently in different schools and different societies, its primary intent is to reduce, if not eliminate, the physical and psychosocial distance between students who have disabilities and their peers who do not. While some national policy statements, like those of the United States, Ireland, and Great Britain, refer to a continuum of placement arrangements to provide individually determined least restrictive learning environments, others, like those in the Scandinavian countries, aim to reduce if not eliminate the “regular-special” distinction altogether, while assuring that each individual student’s needs are addressed. Indeed, virtually all educational inclusion policy statements stress the importance of providing whatever supports, modifications, or adaptations each individual student may need, wherever the student is receiving educational services.

Page 387

What Is Exceptionality?

Ability/disability and health impairments are distinct dimensions. They do not necessarily overlap except in certain conditions, such as muscular dystrophy, which entail high risks for health problems. People who are in any way “exceptional” with respect to ability/disability—such as those with cerebral palsy, a hearing loss, impaired vision, or who are intellectually gifted or cognitively impaired—are not necessarily “exceptional” with respect to health. Like everyone else, these people may experience health problems. As stated, the inclusive classroom is one in which class members include some who are considered exceptional on either of these two dimensions; they have not been excluded because of their exceptionality.

The Ability/Disability Continuum

Defining childhood exceptionality is a circular affair: exceptional children and youth are those eligible for special educational services, which in turn are services provided for exceptional pupils. However, this definition restricts the scope of human differences, which may include the following factors:

Sensory differences, that may be tactile, olfactory, visual, and hearing, such as the bothersome buzzing from a fluorescent light fixture in the classroom.

Other physical differences (e.g., those affecting mobility or other voluntary control of motor activity, vitality, and such basic life functions as eating or toileting)

Communication differences (e.g., using technology or sign language to facilitate speech and language)

Cognitive, or intellectual, and information processing differences (e.g., wait time for your communication partner)

Emotional and behavioral differences, such as identifying triggers and strategies to manage interactions

Developmental delays from birth to age 3 (such as not exhibiting age-apprpopriate developmental markers as sitting or crawling, or responding to significant environmental stimuli)

Federal guidelines under IDEA delineate 13 disability categories based on these dimensions (e.g., deaf is distinguished from hard of hearing; some children are both deaf and blind or are otherwise multiply impaired; and autism spectrum disorder and traumatic brain injury (TBI) are now distinct categories).

Explicit definitions of each classification are important because allocation of financial resources is involved, and schools must ensure that eligible pupils receive services to which they are entitled. But since many such differences occur along a continuum (e.g., cognitive, social–emotional, communication, as discussed in Chapter 11), differentiating exceptionality from normality in the course of children’s development is often a matter of judgment and somewhat arbitrary. Although some disabilities, and some special health care needs, involve qualitative differences that must be considered and addressed, most exceptional children have the same needs, interests, and concerns that their “typical” peers have, and the same right to public education.

Page 388

Historical Perspectives on Special Education

Horace Mann believed the goal of education as preparation for citizenship in a democracy applied to all children.3 Accordingly, Massachusetts’s compulsory attendance law of 1851 explicitly encompassed “crippled” children, and Boston’s Horace Mann School was named in recognition of Mann’s efforts to provide day classes so that deaf children could live at home and interact with hearing children. His staunch ally, Samuel Gridley Howe, was 19th-century America’s most influential special educator. Though he founded the world-renowned Perkins Institute, now located in Watertown, Massachusetts, and was an important figure in the spread of residential institutions, Howe later wrote that such segregated facilities could be justified only, in his words, as “a last resort. The practice of training … blind and [deaf] children in the common schools … will hardly come in my day; but I see it plainly with the eye of faith and rejoice in the prospect of its fulfillment” (as cited in Richards, 1909, p. 25).

Special education’s history is studded with tales of pioneers like Howe, the first to teach a pupil (Laura Dewey Bridgman) who was both deaf and blind; like Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard, the physician who taught Victor, the “wild boy of Aveyron”; and like Edouard Seguin, who defied received wisdom by undertaking to instruct persons who were thought unable to learn, fated to be beggars, dependents, or a threat to society.

Significantly, the historical record also reveals that many of the key breakthroughs were made by persons who themselves had disabilities. Arguing that in blindness lay a key to understanding human reason, the Enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot advised that to understand blindness one must consult blind persons themselves. Valentin Hauy, who founded the world’s first school for blind students in Paris in 1784, heeded Diderot’s counsel and learned from his first pupil, Francois Lesueur, how reading could be accomplished through touch. Since then, the pantheon of “greats” has included persons with visual impairment such as J. W. Klein, Louis Braille, Helen Keller, Thomas Cutsforth, and Robert Irwin. Deaf persons have had a critical role in gaining recognition of Deaf culture and the legitimacy of signed languages. Although deaf education has had hearing pioneers, their own “teachers” were their deaf pupils, many of whom, most notably Laurent Clerc, became influential leaders in that field.

Special education emerged in the context of social reform, inspired by belief in natural rights and individual worth, and the conviction that, through education, every person can contribute to society. In important respects, it began as a rescue mission. In 1860 nearly two thirds of the countless “unfortunates” who languished in American almshouses were children with sensory or other physical or cognitive impairments. By the 1870s, state Boards of Charities, supporting the work of local benevolent societies, had undertaken a major “child-saving” effort, organized nationally as the National Conference of Charities and Corrections. In some families of more privileged circumstance, parents advocated for schooling for their children, a tradition of parent advocacy that since has been pivotal in bringing about major policy reforms.

Early programs based in centralized residential facilities represented an important step in enabling children with disabilities “to share in the blessings of education,” as Howe (1848) eloquently persuaded the Massachusetts legislature in 1848. Although early reformers’ most urgent concern was to provide proper care and at least rudimentary instruction, the goal then, as now, was to achieve maximum independence and integration in society (a goal sadly for a time abandoned for many persons with mental or physical abnormality, such as epilepsy, as attitudes toward deviance became less accepting). Although 19th-century facilities were often called asylums, they were originally intended as extensions of the common schools. But they were training schools, employing a highly utilitarian pedagogy to enable pupils to become, as much as possible, able to support themselves through certain prescribed trades, such as boot-making.

Page 389

Specialized instruction had begun its gradual move into the Common Schools by the beginning of the 20th century. At the same time, school officials, pressed by Settlement leaders like Lillian Wald and Jane Addams, were struggling to meet the challenge of pupil diversity compounded by massive immigration from southern and eastern Europe. Special classes were a facet of a more general diversification effort: so-called “steamer classes” to expose immigrant youngsters to the English language (which led to programs for children with actual speech impairments); separate classes for “unrulies” or troublesome students; “fresh air” schools for pupils with tuberculosis or who were “physically weak” (which led to classes for children with other health impairments); and “ungraded classes” for those who “just didn’t fit” (from which classes for pupils with cognitive disabilities evolved). Excepting deafness and blindness, and speech training for “young stammerers,” special pedagogy was usually secondary to the perceived need to separate pupils who were different as a way of making schooling more manageable.

By the first decades of the 20th century, day classes were increasingly a component of the Common School. The first public day school program for blind children, in Chicago, involved them in many ways with seeing peers, a model emulated in other cities. In rural areas, because blindness is a low-incidence impairment, many children, even those using Braille, have long been enrolled in regular classrooms, receiving periodic assistance from itinerant specialists. Many schools made “reasonable accommodations” for pupils with other physical impairments long before that was legally mandated. But as American attitudes toward differentness grew increasingly negative, special education increasingly became a system within a system, separated physically and administratively. Segregating students who “didn’t fit” in special classes, and excluding altogether those who “didn’t fit” in those classes, schools seemingly tried to manage pupil diversity by making it go away.

By the 1930s, with widespread adoption of IQ testing, the basis for separation of students who had difficulty learning presumably became more scientific and less arbitrary. However, the specialized instruction provided differed from regular instruction mainly because classes were somewhat smaller and comprised pupils of various ages: urban versions (in most instances) of the one-room schoolhouse. However, an emphasis on practical life skills emerged in these programs. For children with physical impairments, chronic health problems, and (by the 1960s) serious emotional disturbance, special pedagogy was truly an afterthought, decidedly secondary to the medically oriented treatment focus. Until the parent-led learning disability movement gathered force in the 1960s, special education was more likely to mean special place than special pedagogy. With implementation of systematic exclusionary policies, the place was often likely to be somewhere other than public school: home, an expensive private facility if families could afford it, or an institution.

Yet even as special education expanded, most students with special needs who were not excluded from schooling altogether were “mainstreamed” because their problems had not been identified or services were not available. For those who had difficulty learning, and also those who were exceptionally capable, there was a downside. Pupils who needed more time, or less time, than their peers, or who could succeed only with some adaptation in the way material was taught or assignments could be completed, often paid a considerable price for being treated like everyone else. In 1975, a watershed year from the standpoint of social policy, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94–142) required schools to identify all students whose disabilities adversely affected their educational functioning and provide them, excluding none, with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Even earlier, some special educators (and parents) questioned whether special education must mean special placement, and many regular educators and parents were concerned about students who experienced difficulties but were not found eligible for special education.

Page 390

In the 1920s, a few leaders, like Leta Hollingworth (1924), were concerned also that gifted children were not being challenged to realize their potential. During this period, some large urban school districts initiated provisions, such as Cleveland’s Major Work Program, for students identified as academically gifted using the special class model. Since then, support for special programs for gifted students has waxed and waned, with advocates concerned that the brightest students are insufficiently challenged in inclusive classrooms, while many opponents argue that what is presented as appropriate for gifted students would be desirable for all students. Two other major concerns involve gifted students who are hard to identify, including ethnic and linguistic minority students and students with disabilities who are also gifted, and each schools’, or each state’s, definition of giftedness. The latter is problematic not only with respect to determining criteria for academic giftedness (usually based on measures of school learning ability, or IQ, and of academic achievement) but also because giftedness can take various forms, including leadership, artistic endeavors, motor performance, and creativity—which are not necessarily reflected in academic measures.

What constitutes an appropriate education for a student who is identified as gifted? Most programs involve enrichment, acceleration, “pull-out,” specialized tracking strategies, or combinations thereof. For students with disabilities, IDEA defines appropriate on the basis of the IEP developed for each student, stipulating that the student’s educational placement must be in the least restrictive environment. In some states, such as Pennsylvania, identification and education requirements for children and youth who are gifted are the same as those with disabilities, although federal legislation addresses only the latter.

Subsequent amendments to the original federal legislation (P.L. 94-142) extended the law’s provisions to children as young as age 3 who demonstrate significant delays in one or more areas of development; added a family-focused early intervention component for infants and toddlers; stipulated a required transition plan (by age 14) in anticipation of a student’s leaving school and entering the adult world of work and community living; clarified definitions; and distinguished autism and traumatic brain injury as distinct areas of disability. No doubt the legislation will continue to be amended as it is revisited by the Congress for periodic reauthorization. Many advocates for gifted and talented students hope that eventually an individually appropriate education will be mandated on a national basis for these students as well.

New Perspectives: Being “Neuro-Atypical” and the Mental Health Continuum

The incidence of autism as recently as the year 2000 was 1 in 150 children. In 2016, autism appeared in 1 out of every 54 children (Maenner et al., 2016). Ongoing research seeking to understand this alarming change focuses on the interaction of genetic and environmental factors that may cause autism; however, while promising findings are reported, adding to our understanding of human brain structure and function, the increase remains a puzzle.

Page 391

While nearly all professionals acknowledge that the increase is real, there are other contributory factors. The fact that we now speak of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) suggests a broad range, from individuals who present somewhat unusual linguistic, sensory, or social characteristics to a much smaller number with severe impairment in these areas. No doubt many individuals considered today “on the spectrum” would, in the past, not have been considered to have a disability. Similarly, the level of awareness of autism among both professionals and the general public is much higher than in the past, increasing the likelihood of early identification and early intervention.

Sometimes likened to a tapestry, ASD can encompass a wide range of presenting behaviors as development proceeds during childhood and adolescence. Accordingly, children with autism sometimes present with behaviors associated with other clinical conditions, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Another, which only in recent years has been thought to be present in childhood, bipolar disorder, is characterized by varying degrees of atypical mood, ranging from debilitating depression to difficult-to-regulate exhilaration or excitability. The most effective treatments for children, as well as adolescents and adults, with ADHD or bipolar disorder are generally believed to involve medication in combination with counseling. Again, recognizing the reality of atypical rather than typical neurological functioning is helpful in understanding these as other areas of human difference.

As we know, anyone can experience illness. Although illness may occur as a result of factors beyond one’s own control, avoiding harmful substances and sources of infection and maintaining personal hygiene, proper sleep and diet, and physical exercise, are all important factors in achieving and maintaining physical health. We now speak of “wellness” with respect to such behavioral patterns. The term mental health, like physical health, also implies the absence of illness, but both concepts also suggest a positive state of thriving and relative well-being. While both reflect a range, rather than an absolute state, qualities or characteristics that have been associated with positive mental health include such attributes associated with psychological well-being as reasonable self-confidence and optimism about the future; ability to maintain satisfying interpersonal relationships; and ability to employ productively one’s cognitive and creative abilities. As with physical well-being, mental hygiene encompasses practices and conditions conducive to achieving and maintaining such qualities.

As with physical health and illness, virtually anyone may potentially be subject to challenges with respect to mental health, whether associated with life events (e.g., loss of a friend or loved one, family crisis, work- or school-related change, or other critical event), genetic or other constitutional factors, or these in combination. One’s success in coping with such challenges, even with therapeutic support, is in no small measure a reflection of one’s mental health.

In children, as noted in the previous section, mood disorders, such as bipolar disorder, and many attentional and/self-regulatory issues, such as ADHD, are now generally considered to be biologically based, as are most personality disorders, such as schizophrenia. But debilitating depression, general anxiety, or specific fears or worries can be associated with a combination of causes, such as the isolation imposed upon young people during the COVID-19 pandemic, or by environmental and biological factors. Many children and youth who engage in self-injurious behavior, such as cutting or, most tragically, suicide, have manifested pervasive sadness, loneliness, or feelings of low self-worth. Children and adolescents may also experience seriously affected life functions, as in sleep disorders and eating disorders. A great many children and adolescents present serious acting-out behaviors which, if recurrent, are collectively termed conduct disorders. These include conditions associated with physical aggression directed at others or fantasies or acts of destruction of property, as well as less serious norm-violating behavior, such as truancy or petty theft.

Page 392

Teachers, school administrators, and parents have understandably expressed grave concerns about inclusion in regular classrooms of students believed likely to present serious classroom management issues. Consequently, specific policies have been formulated and intervention practices recommended to protect the rights, and safety, of all students, as well as those of the student with challenging behavior. Exploring the etiology of a behavior is often more revealing than merely focusing on label. Thus the development of a behavior management plan that is grounded in etiology can be more effective in helping the individual to be more successful in inclusionary settings.

The Health Dimension

Although certain forms of disability may involve greater vulnerability to health problems (e.g., many people with Down syndrome tend to experi­ence cardiac difficulties and middle ear and upper respiratory infections), health is a dimension encompassing everyone. Some disabilities, such as spina bifida, may involve health services such as clean intermittent catheterization (CIC). A child with cerebral palsy may have significant motor, sensory, communication, and possibly cognitive impairment, yet experience no health problems, whereas a child with no such neuromotor involvement may experience, for example, chronic asthma. Most of us enjoy reasonably robust good health most of the time, but all of us will probably, at some times in our lives, experience debilitating illness. Were it not for anticonvulsants or other forms of medication, special diets, or other adaptations, some of us would experience continuous, significant disruption in our daily lives or impairment of critical life functions of self-care, working, and going to school. And for some of us, supplemental oxygen, kidney dialysis, or adaptations make it possible to take in nourishment or eliminate waste, which are essential life functions. Children with leukemia or other forms of cancer may experience times of great fatigue; those with sickle cell disease may experience times of excruciating pain.

wavebreakmedia/iStock/Getty Images

Although they represent a very small proportion of students eligible for special services, children with significant health care needs are often a matter of concern in discussions of inclusion. In fact, a great many American children, estimated at more than 1 in 10, experience some form of chronic illness, although the number with relatively severe conditions is much less. However, several factors have led to increased prevalence in recent years: interventions that sustain life in utero and facilitate the survival of newborns at very low birth weight and with related biological risk factors, such as respiratory distress; medical advances in bringing certain childhood diseases that were once fatal into remission during the vulnerable first year of life; marked increases in drug-affected pregnancies; and HIV transmission to newborns. Given these factors, the National Center for Health Statistics (2000) estimated that at least 2% of all surviving American newborns were likely to have conditions implying special health care needs, with the risk factors twice as great for babies born to African American mothers than for babies born to European American mothers.

Page 393

Some conditions involve established risk (that is, the condition is known to involve lasting impairment), but much more often the future of a newborn at biological risk (e.g., very young gestational age at birth, very low birth weight) cannot be reliably predicted, for much depends on the quality of nurture the child will have. Although many of the great numbers of children born each year who were prenatally exposed to alcohol, lead, crack or powder cocaine, or other toxic agents continue to have special needs, biology is not destiny. These and other biological factors interact in subtle ways with environmental ones, most crucially the quality of nurture and of health care.

After a brief period of time in the neonatal intensive care unit, a still tiny infant is likely to come home, dependent on life-support equipment parents will need to manage as they attempt to normalize the baby’s life and their own. Many young children soon cease to be technology dependent, but some will continue to need a respirator, perhaps, or require nasogastric or gastrostomy tube feeding. Although the term medically fragile is really inappropriate considering the struggle a newborn may need to put forth just to survive, some children who may require no special adaptations to support life functions may be particularly susceptible to infection, experience debilitating allergies, or have other special health care needs throughout their school careers, and perhaps throughout their lives.

Also, for children experiencing lengthy hospital stays for any reason, the convention of establishing a hospital school, introduced in Europe, was adopted in the growing number of pediatric hospitals and pediatric units in general hospitals. Increasingly, public education agencies assumed operation of such schools, especially in large metropolitan communities. For many children believed unable to manage the physical demands of school attendance, whether hospitalized or at home, state departments of education or local school districts established tutoring for “homebound and hospitalized children.”

Health needs of children and youth have changed with the presumed conquest (in industrialized nations) of tuberculosis, poliomyelitis, and a number of diseases, such as smallpox, scarlet fever, and diptheria, to which children had been particularly vulnerable. Philosophies of medical care have changed also. Extended periods of hospitalization are now rare for children (as for adults), and while that has been influenced by crass realities of cost and insurance coverage limits, it also reflects awareness of the importance for children to experience conditions of growing up that are as normal as possible. Most children who in times past would have been excluded, either by formal policy or assumed dependency, weakness, or vulnerability, now go to school with their siblings, neighbors, and friends.

What are the implications for inclusive education? We should remember three basic, and obvious, principles: (1) we can all expect to experience serious health problems at some time in our lives, for they are part of the universal human condition; (2) serious health impairment in childhood is certainly not a new phenomenon, historically speaking, evidenced in epidemics and pandemics of the past to which children were especially vulnerable; and (3) a health problem is, for a child or an adult, certainly not a person’s only, or primary, identifying characteristic or need.

Page 394

Our own vulnerability helps explain an element of fear, particularly of contagion, that for centuries focused on leprosy, a century ago on tuberculosis, then on poliomyelitis, and today on AIDS even though other conditions (e.g., hepatitis B or the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19) are more readily transmitted than is the HIV virus. Today, all school personnel are advised to employ universal health precautions to lessen the risk to themselves or to pupils of any form of infection, especially if there is possible exposure to blood or any body fluids. The need for such precautions is not affected by whether or not a school adopts an inclusive education philosophy. While contagious disease is understandably feared, it is conquered not by avoidance, ignorance, or blaming the victim. This point is certainly the message of AIDS awareness.

Another source of fear has to do with a different type of vulnerability, implied by terms such as medically fragile. Teachers neither want a child to be endangered nor want themselves to be vulnerable to guilt feelings or even to a lawsuit should a pupil in their charge incur injury or even die. As with many human fears, these are best allayed by information, availability of appropriate resources and supports, and most important, personal experience. Teachers can feel vulnerable whether they are dealing with a child who has a condition that is actually life threatening or has no chronic special health care needs per se but significant physical impairment. A fourth-grade teacher participating in an inclusion project in Virginia spoke of “fear of the unknown. … You’re afraid they might hurt you or you might hurt them” (Janney, Snell, Beers, & Raynes, 1995, p. 436). Rachel Janney and her coauthors, reporting on the success of that project, summarized:

Teachers who initially had been hesitant to get involved … judged that their original fears and expectations were based on inaccurate perceptions about the integrated student’s needs and abilities. By getting to know the students with disabilities on an individual basis, they had gained knowledge of the student’s unique abilities and a new perspective on disabilities in general. “I guess we just really had never thought about them being ‘normal.’ They really are,” explained the junior high math teacher in District C. These general education teachers’ attitudes toward integration also had been changed by finding that it was personally and professionally rewarding to work with the integrated students, a sentiment expressed in these words by the high school physical education teacher in District A: “These kids seem to appreciate you a lot more … and that’s a little pat on the back for the teacher” (p. 438).

Characteristics of an Inclusive Classroom

The discussion in the preceding section, although it gives a sense of what inclusion in this specific sense means, is likely to raise questions in a teacher’s, or prospective teacher’s, mind about how, or even whether, inclusion actually works. Inclusive schools and classrooms do not just happen, nor do they require each individual teacher to be “all things to all students.” Some of the major ideas reflected in this chapter’s Case Study are based on legal requirements, but most derive from or are congruent with emerging principles and practices in general pedagogy and in the way many schools now operate.

Page 395

Inclusion and Human Diversity

One fundamental idea is an old one, and it is that a major purpose of schooling is to prepare the young for citizenship in a democracy that is increasingly heterogeneous. Another idea is relatively new: that the young must be prepared for successful participation in a global economy. The fact that the world children will enter is not one in which everyone is like themselves has important implications for the necessary learning experiences of any child, with or without a disability or health impairment. The former will not live in a society comprised only of other people with cerebral palsy, mental retardation, autism, dyslexia, diabetes, and so forth; the latter will not live in a society comprised only of people who do not have these conditions or characteristics. Related to that societal reality is another that can be seen in any school and in any classroom: even if it were desirable to eliminate heterogeneity in a group of learners by putting anyone who is “different” in another group, it is impossible, for every group is necessarily heterogeneous; all children are “different.”

Another major idea emerging in general pedagogy, collaboration, involves new kinds of teacher–specialist relationships and team models, more mutually supportive school–family relationships, and new awareness of the important role of interactions among learners. Each of these sets of relationships is multifaceted. For example, Marlene Pugach and Lawrence Johnson (1995) described four different roles—supportive, facilitative, informative, and prescriptive—underlying relationships of adults within schools. The IDEA legislation implies such relationships with respect to the education of students with disabilities, but the concept of collaboration goes beyond the legal requirements:

The law requires multidiscipline participation in assessing a student’s current functioning and planning and monitoring the student’s IEP, but collaboration suggests continuing interdisciplinary teamwork on the part of regular and special educators and other specialists in implementing the student’s program.

The law requires parents’ informed consent prior to the administration of a multifactored evaluation (also referred to as the evaluation team report or ETR), participation in developing the IEP, and right to procedural due process in the event of disagreement; collaboration suggests going beyond these bare legal requirements to ensure that a student’s IEP reflects the family’s concerns and priorities, that a student’s home and school expectations and experiences are mutually supportive, and that professionals respect the primacy and continuing influence of families on children’s development.

The law requires that students with disabilities be educated as much as is appropriate with peers who do not have disabilities; collaboration implies optimizing the potential benefits for both by fostering positive classroom interactions and creating opportunities for students to respect and learn from each other and to develop feelings of group identification.

wavebreakmedia/Shutterstock

Page 396

Policy requirements have a critical role in determining how students with disabilities are educated, but as in all aspects of schooling, other factors such as research findings influence pedagogical practices. Like all educators, those in the field of special education are accountable to educational standards and the assessment of student progress.

Teaching in the 21st Century: Who are the Students?

As emphasized throughout this book, the increasing student diversity found in classrooms across America and elsewhere continues to challenge teachers and human service professionals alike. These students are both typical learners with more easily ameliorated educational concerns and abilities and individuals that present learning challenges, which are not specific to their cultural or ethnic origins. Added to this are the growing numbers of students that are being identified with varying disabilities. In 2017–2018, the number of students between the ages of 3 and 21 who received special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was 7 million, or 14% of all public school students. Among students receiving special education services, 34% were identified with specific learning disabilities, 19% had speech or language impairments, 14% had other health concerns, 10% were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, 7% had developmental delays, 6% with intellectual disabilities, 5% were emotionally challenged, and fewer than 5% exhibited multiple disabilities, hearing impairments, orthopedic challenges, or another affliction (NCES, 2019).

A never-ending question all educators struggle to answer is how students learn best. Are learning outcomes of a student more impacted by the external influence of family and peers and/or by teachers and textbooks, or is learning ultimately motivated and organized internally from within the student? Regardless of your belief, do you think this is true of all learners? This is far from a simple issue considering the wide variation among children with disabilities. Generally speaking, children with disabilities, and certainly children with health impairments, are more like other children in the way they learn, and in what they need to learn, than they are different from their peers. Some learners do require more adult direction and adult-imposed structure than others, but the same can be said of many students who do not have disabilities.

The Work of Teachers and Students

Today, because most children with disabilities live at home and attend public schools, the roles, responsibilities, and relationships between educators and the families have altered dramatically. That, coupled with the increasing number of students that have been identified with disabilities and who participate either fully or to some degree in regular education, demands fundamental changes in the roles of both the general education teacher and the special educator, now termed intervention specialist, and their interdependence in facilitating the education of children with learning challenges.

Page 397

Arguably, the diverse needs present in any learning group can more effectively be accommodated with constructivist approaches than those that assume that all pupils learn the same things at the same pace (see Chapter 11). Individualizing instruction represents an important legacy of special education that can be, in some regards, applicable to all students, although all students do not require an IEP. The constructivist theory adapts well to inclusionary settings as it opens the door to adjusting to a variety of different learning styles. If you asked any group of individuals how they learned best as a student, some would say they benefitted by reading information, others by writing down what they heard in a lecture, some through a hands-on approach actively engaged with the content, while others might benefit by collaborating with peers. There are a multitude of ways that individuals learn, and this is true of learners considered to be typical as well as those with learning challenges. This issue is critical, however, with respect to the pedagogy of inclusion. Teachers assume that when children learn important skills, such as mathematics, they will generalize this to new situations. Children with developmental delays or disabilities, however, may require an intervention in the way of extra support. This support can be adult supervision via an instructional aide, and/or the intervention specialist either in the inclusionary setting or as a prescribed pullout to a resource room where the new skill is introduced in an alternative manner or method.

In schools as well as clinical settings, intervention specialists carry out the recommendations of a team that, depending on the disability, can be comprised of school psychologists, classroom teachers, as well as physical, occupational, and/or speech–language therapists. The family, who is always a part of these meetings, has a legal right to include other members such as an advocate, physician, or a friend for support. IEP teams, generally led by a school psychologist or a special education supervisor, are expected to work together, and as such, the model was termed multidisciplinary. Although the terms multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary might mistakenly be used interchangeably, in actuality they are different. Simply put, multidisciplinary refers to individuals from their respective disciplines bringing their individual expertise to the team while maintaining their particular expertise as in a silo. An example of this is when a speech therapist works on their objective as a pull out service rather than a skill to be practiced in a multitude of settings. Professionals employing an interdisciplinary approach bring their expertise in an integrated manner. An example of this is when the general education teacher reinforces the occupational and speech therapy objectives by integrating them into the academics that are being taught and vice versa. A transdisciplinary approach extends the interdisciplinary model to help transfer what is being taught in the school setting to other contexts such as the home, community, or work setting (Rainforth, York, & Macdonald, 1997).

The general education classroom teacher is often the first one to identify children having difficulty in school as well as those who might be gifted. When differences are suspected, be they deficits or exceptional skills, the teacher would confer first with the parent and as IDEA stipulates, to attempt to address the needs within the regular classroom. If their attempts are not successful, with parental informed consent, the referral for a multifactored evaluation (MFE) or evaluation team report (ETR) is made to determine if the student is eligible for special education services. However, federally mandated placement continuum of possible school arrangements implies that nearly all exceptional pupils would have varying degrees of involvement in the general education classroom, either pulled out for special help or provided supportive aids and services within the regular education program.

Page 398

Knowledge as a Tool in the Classroom

While the question of what is to be learned in any classroom has always been a concern, it is especially critical when considering the inclusionary classroom. What knowledge is of most value depends in large part on the specific disability being addressed. In the case of blindness, deafness, and other physical impairments, the answer to that question was knowledge that could enable one to be maximally independent and self-supporting as an adult. In the past, such knowledge usually implied training in one of the trades, with similar training provided for those with cognitive impairments as well as epilepsy. Today, with schooling under the zero exclusion mandate of P. L. 94–142, a “criterion of ultimate functioning” was advanced as the basis for curriculum for students with severe disabilities, including severe cognitive disability. This criterion means that what is taught must be age-appropriate, future-oriented, functional, and community-referenced (Snell, 1993).

Based on an educational diagnostic profile showing specific areas of strength or challenge, a plan of remediation or compensatory instruction could be devised for each pupil, usually within the context of the standard curriculum. This distinctive feature, individually tailored instruction, was subsequently mandated for all eligible students with disabilities, throughout the individualized education plan (IEP), which specifies individual annual goals and short-term objectives and services to be delivered to each student who receives special education. Although not required by federal law, in some states an IEP and other provisions are required for those students identified as gifted.

Evaluating the Results of Teaching and Learning

With respect to children with disabilities, assessment has both a general and specific meaning. Emerging trends in educational assessment (general) are relevant for all learners, but two assessment concerns (specific) have unique importance: the determination, as a result of assessment, of eligibility of special education services, and the determination of how accountability for those services is demonstrated. The former concern also pertains to possibly gifted and talented students. However, for those with “suspected handicaps” the IDEA requires that to be eligible for special education services, a pupil must have a disability (as defined in the law) that adversely affects educational functioning. Such determination cannot be based on only one measure or one criterion, but is based instead on an ETR conducted with informed parental consent by appropriately qualified, multidisciplinary professionals, using appropriate and nondiscriminatory procedures.

IDEA broadly defines criteria for each disability “category,” but individual state standards may specify what types of assessments must be carried out, such as a medical or a psychological evaluation. In the case of gifted and talented programs, mandated in some states but not in others, state or local district policies stipulate the criteria and identification processes. In both cases, norm-referenced, standardized tests (e.g., IQ tests) play an important role but must be used in combination with other appropriate procedures (e.g., criterion-referenced tests of academic skills, teacher reports, and ratings completed by both the family and the teacher). Should parents disagree with the findings from these tests, they have the right to request an independent educational evaluation (IEE). The team would then convene to discuss all testing including the IEE.

Page 399

The IEP is an accountability document. It states the specific services the pupil will be provided, who is responsible for delivering such services, and for each goal listed it delineates the evaluation procedure that must be used. Each goal must be stated in observable and measurable objectives. Most students continue to be assessed the same as their typical peers with possible modifications (e.g., only responsible for odd problems whereas their peers complete even and odd) and/or accommodations (e.g., extra time, quiet space) as stipulated in their IEP. For assessment purposes, if a student’s IEP indicates that standardized and general education classroom testing is not an appropriate tool to determine student’s academic success, the IEP goals and objectives are used as the basis to develop an alternative assessment.

Parents may or may not suspect that their child is having some learning challenges, but it is the classroom teacher’s keen observation skills that are essential in identifying the child’s learning difficulties in the classroom setting. Once this awareness of need is observed it is the teacher’s responsibility to investigate strategies or interventions that might help to unlock the student’s learning potential. The response to intervention (RTI), also referred to as multitiered system of supports (MTSS), assumes that the student is typical and that it is the responsibility of general education to determine the best mode of learning for the student. This differentiated approach can be part of the classroom–wide instruction with students working in small groups or individually. The data derived from the interventions is used to determine: (a) who needs intervention (i.e., who is meeting expectations, falling below expectations, at-risk of falling below expectations, or exhibiting any unexpected outcomes); (b) skills that are lacking; (c) interventions that might be appropriate for an individual student or group of students; and (d) what progress will be monitored (Kowalski, 2020).

With young children diagnostic profiles are often based on developmental domains as described in Chapter 11. For older students, and those with severe or multiple impairments, diagnostic profiles often are based on functional domains, such as meal preparation, laundry, work, and leisure skills. For children with visual impairments, assessing how the child uses their vision, orients in space, and progresses in achieving independent mobility are critical concerns. For those with hearing impairments, use of residual hearing or compensatory (hearing-aid augmentation, lipreading) or alternative (sign language) communication modes is critical. In both instances, progress in communication and literacy, as well as in general curricular areas, is continually assessed. Children with impaired mobility or communication-specific assessment concerns may require adaptive equipment or procedures.

Each student is unique, and some indeed have differences that require certain adaptations or support services in order to receive an appropriate education as required under the federal law. Can these be provided within normalized classroom settings in which they learn side by side with typical peers? That is the challenge of inclusive education.

Page 400

Making Inclusive Teaching Work

The Importance of Collaboration

Students with and without disabilities are intended to benefit from participation in inclusive classrooms. Perhaps the greatest benefits are the positive self-esteem of all the students, the potential for developing empathy and expanding friendship networks for all, and the fact that more students have their needs met than in a conventional classroom. The special education student doesn’t experience the stigma and confusion associated with the daily journey to a “special” room for “special” instruction. The day is less fragmented, and the student doesn’t feel different or left out. Also, special education teachers have hands-on experience with their interventions—applying them to real, daily learning situations—and can make more precise changes in those interventions as they are needed. With a coteaching situation, there is always a teacher available to help a student. Also, coteaching provides two perspectives on any situation and increases creativity in teaching.

Mutual understanding and respect are essential elements in any true collaboration. The special educator and the regular educator should acknowledge that both have specialized knowledge and skills but that their perspectives and knowledge bases may differ. For example, special educators should recognize that the regular educators’ instructional and behavior management techniques often can be effective in working with students with special needs. They must also understand that teachers in regular classrooms must respond to the needs of many students and cannot devote disproportionate time and attention to any one student. They must also recognize that some techniques that may be successful in a separate special education class may not be appropriate for the regular classroom environment. As coteachers, both are responsible for attending to the needs of all students. Thus, general education students will view the intervention specialist as approachable to their needs and not just the needs of the exceptional student.

At the same time, the regular educator should recognize that his or her special education colleagues may be responsible for supporting many students in a variety of settings and therefore have a limited amount of time to devote to each student. She or he must also realize that a new intervention strategy is unlikely to have an immediate effect and that a fair trial is needed before judging it ineffective. Acknowledging that students differ in the extent of instructional adaptations they need, regular classroom teachers should understand that many of the adaptations that the specialist recommends will be extensions of regular education techniques. They should also maintain familiarity with each exceptional student’s IEP, sharing responsibilities for determining how goals and objectives can be reinforced during the course of classroom activities.

Accordingly, teachers might develop the following set of principles to guide their collaborative team functioning:

Establish a system for ongoing communication.

Discuss each placement together.

Assist each other in individualizing instruction.

Work together to adapt subject matter.

Share materials.

Assist each other in adapting evaluative procedures.

Exhibit characteristics of flexibility, dedication, reliability, organization, imagination, energy, initiative, and enthusiasm.

Involve others by sharing plans and ideas.

Seek support and suggestions from others.

Set realistic goals.

Work to improve interpersonal relations.

Be happy and proud about working with students with special needs.

Remember that presenting a positive attitude will change attitudes about inclusion both inside and outside the school.

Page 401

What Does Flexibility Involve

Teachers often use the word flexibility in describing their inclusion programs. While flexibility is important in any teaching situation, it is critical to the success of inclusion of students whose learning characteristics and needs may require adaptations, both planned and spontaneous, in the instructional program. Classroom adaptations to accommodate differential needs among all students can be delineated in terms of four basic parameters: curriculum materials, instructional strategies, classroom organization, and behavior management.

Curriculum Materials

Within the context of the regular curriculum, learning experiences can be adapted in a wide variety of ways, as suggested by these examples:

When working with fractions, provide recipes that include measurements and have student identify all the fractions on the recipe.

When teaching about time, help student develop a personal schedule showing daily activities matched to a clock face showing the time of the activity.

When working with adding two columns of numbers and regrouping, help student practice balancing a checkbook or compile a shopping list with prices, using a calculator to add.

When administering a spelling test, have student practice identifying functional words.

When identifying U.S. presidents, have student practice keyboarding skills by locating letters of presidents’ names.

Instructional Strategies

Examples of instructional adaptations include the following:

The way instruction is delivered (e.g., visual or auditory aids, learning centers, cooperatively structured activities, cooperative learning, small group instruction).

The way the learner can demonstrate knowledge (e.g., oral vs. written response, pictures that can be pointed to, using a computer, augmentative communication devices such as picture boards, tape recorder, language master, calculators).

Modifying the number of items the learner is expected to complete (e.g., spelling words, math problems).

Classroom Organization

Adaptations can be made in aspects such as the following:

The skill level, problem type, or rules on how the learner may approach the work (e.g., using calculators or computer, simplifying task directions, changing rules to allow for participation, breaking a task down to sequential steps, providing more planned opportunities to achieve success).

The amount of individual instruction with a specific learner (e.g., peer partner, use of teaching assistant).

The time allotted (e.g., extra time to practice new skills, individualized timelines for work completion, flexible class schedules) and/or the location (e.g., specific classroom area, home, school library, or media center) for completing a task.

Page 402

Behavior Management

Examples of adaptations that can be used to anticipate and prevent inappropriate or disruptive behavior include the following:

Have student assist with visual aid equipment while some other students are being instructed.

Have student take on a teacher role by sharing a favorite activity or interest.

Individualize goals or outcome expectations while using the same materials (e.g., a language arts activity of diagramming a sentence can be, for some students, a verbal language activity of hearing and speaking in full sentences).

As a way of conceptualizing variations in individual students’ needs for instructional adaptation or curricular modifications, teachers devised a continuum of levels, each defined by a question for the team to resolve through discussion.

Level I. What can the student learn in the regular program of instruction with the same performance standards as nondisabled peers? Equal expectation for all students would be an example.

Level II. What can the student learn with nondisabled peers, but with adjustments in performance standards according to the student’s needs as identified through curriculum-based assessment? An example here might be fewer problems to solve.

Level III. What can the student learn with adjustments in pacing, method of instruction, or special materials or techniques provided with consultant support to the teacher? For instance, with regard to pacing, a student might be allowed extended time to complete the assignment.

Level IV. What can the student learn with adjustments in pacing, method of instruction, or special materials or techniques provided jointly with regular and support or ancillary staff? Here, we might frontload the materials so the student has advance knowledge of what is to be presented.

Level V. What can the student learn with adjustments in the content of the classroom curriculum to be taught jointly by regular and special support or ancillary staff? For example, presenting the same content in a more simplistic format or reading along with ancillary staff.

Level VI. What classroom curriculum content must be modified significantly and taught by special staff? Here we might consider how material can be presented in a concrete manner or divided into smaller chunks to facilitate learning.

Level VII. In what situation is some or all of the content of the classroom curriculum inappropriate for this student? What alternative curriculum program will be used to address this student’s educational needs? In such a case, the student might be present for the social aspect of a class but academics are provided in an alternatively identified setting.

Kim Gunkel/Getty Images

Page 403

Ethical Issues in Inclusive Education

Federal legislation does not mandate inclusion, as defined earlier in the chapter, although it does forbid exclusion. The legal basis for inclusion continues to be the least restrictive environment (LRE), the requirement that education occur “as much as appropriate” in a regular classroom setting, with supportive aids and services, as may be needed. Some professionals, organizations, and also parents have reservations about any concept that could be interpreted to suggest “one size fits all,” especially if legislators and school officials construe inclusion to mean less costly services. (Although individual needs differ widely, the cost per year of educating a student with disabilities is, on average, about twice the cost of educating other pupils, only a part of which is provided through IDEA.)

The American Federation of Teachers, in fact, had called for a moratorium on inclusion until all schools were provided with the kinds of supports (resource specialists and classroom aides) and other provisions (such as manageable class size) that they needed. But advocates compare such proposals to similar situations in the civil rights movement, in which a moratorium on school desegregation was suggested until all European Americans fully “accepted” their African American fellow citizens. The question in both situations is, Should the crucial years of childhood be allowed to pass irretrievably while children’s elders await optimal conditions?

Can every individual child with special needs receive an individually appropriate education without having to be segregated in a special place? Can these students still get the services they need? And what about the typical students? As such questions are debated in local schools many teachers in collaboration with parents are making inclusive education a reality. From such examples, the Advocacy Board for the Center on Human Policy (1994) at Syracuse University developed the following statement:

Inclusion Means

Educating all children with disabilities in regular classrooms regardless of the nature of their disabling condition(s).

Providing all students enhanced opportunities to learn from each other’s contributions.

Providing necessary services within the regular schools.

Supporting regular teachers and administrators (e.g., by providing time, training, teamwork, resources, and strategies).

Having students with disabilities follow the same schedules as nondisabled students.

Involving students with disabilities in age-appropriate academic classes and extracurricular activities, including art, music, gym, field trips, assemblies, and graduation exercises.

Students with disabilities using school cafeteria, library, playground, and other facilities along with nondisabled students.

Encouraging friendships between nondisabled and disabled students.

Students with disabilities receiving their education and job training in regular community environments when appropriate.

Teaching all children to understand and accept human differences.*

Placing children with disabilities in the same schools they would attend if they did not have disabilities.

Taking parents’ concerns seriously.

Providing an appropriate individualized educational program.

*Advocacy Board, Center on Human Policy, “Inclusion in education: A choice for your child,” Newsletter, TASH: The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, vol. 20, issue no. 9, 1994, page 27. Copyright © Syracuse University. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

Page 404

Inclusion Does Not Mean

“Dumping” students with disabilities into regular programs without preparation or support.

Providing special education services in separate or isolated places.

Ignoring children’s individual needs.

Jeopardizing students’ safety or well-being.

Placing unreasonable demands on teachers and administrators.

Ignoring parents’ concerns.

Isolating students with disabilities in regular schools.

Placing students with disabilities in schools or classes that are not age-appropriate.

Requiring that students be “ready” and “earn” their way into regular classrooms based on cognitive or social skills.

Perhaps the most important ethical issues involved in inclusion, however, are the degree to which it benefits an individual student and the degree to which educators are committed to seeing that positive effect occur, like Mr. Nichol’s students at Southpoint Middle School that were so impacted by the ARC presentation that they started an inclusionary friend group.

Critical Incident

Integrating the New Student With a Disability

As a new teacher in Southpoint Elementary School, you are assigned to a classroom that is directly across the hall from Mr. Fine’s. You have been watching him closely throughout the year and are particularly intrigued by the degree of comfort he seems to have with Carol, the student who uses a wheelchair. At mid-year, a new student is assigned to your classroom. Stephen is a boy from out of state who has a degenerative orthopedic disorder that requires him to use a walker on most days and a wheelchair on some of the more difficult days. You are not certain how you will integrate him into the classroom, but you are concerned that his first day is most positive.

How will you go about introducing Stephen to other students in your class?

What will you do to familiarize your students with disabilities in general and with Stephen’s in particular?

 

The Reluctant Parents

Not long after Stephen moves into your classroom, several parents approach you expressing concerns that their children may be missing out on valuable time with you as the primary teacher and may not themselves develop as fully as the parents expect. You, of course, are concerned that all students receive the education to which they are entitled.

Page 405

How will you go about addressing the parents’ concerns?

What issues would you want to be certain they understood?

In what kinds of activities might you engage them so they become better informed and more positive about the opportunities their children will have?

 

Summary

This chapter has described both the historical foundations of the field of special education and current practices in the inclusion of children with disabilities or who may be identified as gifted in regular education programs. In addition, it addresses issues related to the health of children and the responsibility of teachers and schools to consider the means by which children with a variety of special health care needs can be integrated into the regular classroom. Of most importance is the critical role the teacher can play in ensuring that all children are fully integrated into the life and activities of today’s classroom while they develop the skills necessary to function effectively in the society at large.

Key Terms

adaptive equipment

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

autism spectrum disorder

behavior management plan

bipolar disorder

cerebral palsy

clean intermittent catheterization (CIC)

conduct disorders

Down syndrome

evaluation team report (ETR)

group homes

inclusion

individual education program or plan (IEP)

informed consent

intervention specialist

least restrictive environment (LRE)

multifactored evaluation

multitiered system of supports (MTSS)

muscular dystrophy

normalization

placement continuum

related services

response to intervention (RTI)

sickle cell disease

specific learning disabilities

spina bifida

supported employment

transition plan

traumatic brain injury (TBI)

universal health precautions

zero exclusion mandate

The Student With Special Needs

Purpose: To assist future teachers in gaining greater understanding and insight into the probable expectations and responsibilities toward children with special needs.

Instructions: Full inclusion of all children in all classrooms is likely to be a major emphasis in the years to come, thus making it essential that all teachers are well-versed in ways to accommodate the needs of children with special needs. The following exercises will assist you in developing a greater understanding of your role and responsibilities.

Page 406

Arrange to do an observation of a classroom that has children who have special needs. What do you notice about the manner in which the teacher interacts with the children who have special needs compared to those without special needs? What needs do the children seem to have that are unique to this group? Common to other children? What modifications in instructional approach are evident?

Interview a parent of a child who receives special educational services. In what ways has the child been helped? What improvements are still needed in the education the child receives? What recommendations does the parent have for you, as a future teacher, regarding what you might provide for children who have special needs?

Interview a teacher, focusing on how she or he has been affected by educational policy directed at children with special needs. What modifications has the teacher made in teaching? What special preparation has she or he received to help make the necessary changes? What does the teacher still feel is needed?

Ask to observe a conference where an individual educational plan (IEP) is developed for a student with special needs. Analyze the perspectives and needs of each of the parties at the meeting. What concerns did parents address? Teachers? Administrators? Psychologists? Students? What concerns did you have that were not addressed?

Classroom Activities

Aided by information you are able to obtain, describe what, if any, adaptations you would want to make to enable any of the following students to participate fully and most successfully in a lesson you plan to implement:

A class member whose low vision often requires the use of high-contrast or otherwise-adapted print materials in order for her to participate optimally.

A class member who is generally successful regardless of his autism spectrum diagnosis.

A class member who uses a wheelchair.

A class member who, although experiencing no hearing loss, demonstrates particular difficulty processing auditory information.

Depending on the instructional level at which you plan to teach, begin a bibliography or resource file (e.g., films) that will help your future students better understand and interact comfortably with others, including their peers, who experience special health care needs, difficulties in learning or social behavior, mobility or sensory impairments, or other special needs. For each item, describe your possible classroom use.

Page 407

Reflective Questions

Can every student with special needs receive an individually appropriate education without having to be segregated in a special place? Using information about these conditions accessible via the Internet or other sources, suggest how a teacher might endeavor to accomplish this for:

Madeline, a 13-year-old middle school student, who is on the autism spectrum, displays difficulties in social interactions and sometimes in self-control, along with strong, although sometimes atypical, intellectual interests.

Marcus, age 7, who is one of a growing number of young children with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and whose parents and pediatrician rely on his teacher’s communication in order to monitor his medication and guide the therapeutic counseling he receives.

How can Madeline’s and Marcus’s teachers make certain that these students’ classmates not only are not detrimentally affected but also derive benefit from their inclusion in regular education?

Endnotes